Problems of Privatization

By Kevin Sullivan, InterPress Service, 14 February 1999

SARAJEVO, Feb 14 (IPS)—Delayed and heavily criticised plans to
privatize Bosnia's economy have come under renewed fire, this time
from representatives of two of the country's religious
communities.

In the three years since the end of the Bosnian war ambitious
privatization proposals have been faulted for lack of transparency and
incompetent drafting of relevant legislation.

There also was a widespread belief that politicians and well-placed
civil servants were scheming to buy-up assets at bargain-basement
prices.

While the pace of privatization has been glacial in the Serb
Republic—one of the two entities into which Bosnia-Herzegovina
was divided by the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement—the parliament of
the Muslim-Croat Federation, the other entity, recently adopted a
privatization law which opened the way for the sale of public housing.

The process was complicated by the fact that legal tenancy in many
cases has been disputed following the forced migration of large
numbers of people during the three and-a-half year civil war.

Vouchers to buy privatized state assets started being issued this
week, after considerable delay and privatization of the banking sector
is scheduled to begin next month.

The process was stepped up at the end of January when Carlos
Westendorp, the UN representative, charged with supervising the
implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, inaugurated a
Privatization Monitoring Commission, designed to resolve political
deadlock and examine social issues raised by privatization.

This week Westendorp received separate open letters from leaders of
Bosnia's Jewish and Muslim communities criticising the latest
proposals to sell off state-owned property.

The religious leaders said that property confiscated by the pre- World
War II Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as well as property stolen by the
wartime Nazi puppet regime and property nationalised by the former
communist regime, should not be put up for sale until provision was
made to compensate the original owners.

At present, the government has proposed paying compensation, when it
is deemed necessary, with vouchers, a form of scrip which has not
impressed potential beneficiaries.

In the first post-Communist elections, held in 1990 “all
political parties promised restitution,” said Jewish Community
President Jakob Finci, “Everything which was taken under
socialism was to be turned back over to the original owners.

“Now, after eight years, nothing has been given back, not
communal property, not private property.”

Finci stressed that before the Holocaust in the 1940s, Jews in
Sarajevo were the owners of “a respectable amount of
property.”

“Nationalising things is like making scrambled eggs,” he
said “ Restitution is like putting the eggs back together again;
you can’t do it easily, but some mistakes can be avoided. You
can provide cash instead of certificates and I’m against
restitution in valueless paper.”

Similar arguments were used by Mustafa Ceric, head of Bosnia's
Muslim clergy, who wrote to Westendorp arguing that “the process
of taking property from the Islamic community dates from 1918.”

He said “more than 90 percent of the property of the Islamic
community has been taken and the value of confiscated property is put
at several billions of Deutsche Marks.” And he underlined the
the confiscation of residential and institutional buildings owned by
Islamic charitable foundations.

“If restoration of the property is not possible the law provides
for compensation through vouchers, and it's well known that
vouchers don’t represent fair compensation for property
taken,” Ceric said in his letter. “We suggest that
religious communities and property holders without any preconditions
are given back their residential and commercial buildings.”

Ceric conceded that land which had been developed since it was
expropriated could not be returned, but should therefore be the
subject of compensation payments.

In the Islamic tradition, maintaining the property of charitable
foundations is a religious obligation.

“If the Islamic community is the keeper of an old building, for
example, their obligation is to maintain the building. If they have to
sell it for some reason then they have to buy another building to be
used for the same purpose.”

The obligation to maintain charitable foundations—and
consequently to seek the restoration of property owned by such
foundations—affects a considerable amount of property. In
Sarajevo alone around 300 choice residential locations now in state
hands and scheduled to be sold off are believed to have formerly
belonged to the Islamic community.

The issue of religious property further complicates a Byzantine
bureaucratic and political situation.

“The parties now in government promised fast privatization after
they won the elections, but that hasn’t happened,”
observed newspaper commentator Ibrahim Polimac. “Not more than 5
percent of apartments have been bought by citizens and people are
waiting for certificates that are now a year late.”

Among the many practical obstacles to selling off property is the
absence of reliable data on ownership. “Statistical information

is much worse than in other countries,” said Polimac, noting
that Serb, Croat and Muslim-controlled local authorities have resisted
the countrywide collation of information.

“You have three sources, everyone is giving his own source, plus
agencies like the World Bank have their own statistics. So there is no
exact data, just estimates.”

May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service
outside of the APC networks, without specific permission from IPS.
This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board
systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For information
about cross- posting, send a message to <wdesk@ips.org>. For
information about print or broadcast reproduction please contact the
IPS coordinator at <online@ips.org>.